Eric Cantor just lost his primary.

[Rob's House]

 

 

Some brat disciple?

 

So what is a brat disciple and what makes you think he is prone to say something in regards to women, equal rights or race that would be cookoo?

 

Because real people are bound to make real comments and reality is offensive to the left.

[Tiberius]

 

I checked the links in the second paragraph and then stopped there. Here's why:

 

In the link Mother Jones claims is slashing Social Security for seniors, Brat speaks about how seniors today are dependant on this money, and further, that individuals approaching senior status may also be dependant upon it, and would require some "grandfathering in to the old system", but that moving forward, the system must be reformed in order that in remain solvent. So, he's not talking about slashing Social Security for seniors at all. He's talking about reforming the system for future generations,

 

 

Oh, he just wants to destroy it so in our later years, when we are told old to make a living it isn't there for us. Some reform.

[Deranged Rhino]

I take it back. You're not as smart as I would like to give you credit for. In fact you might be borderline illiterate based on your stunning lack of comprehension of my position.

 

You still got my entire position wrong while adding a heaping layer of disdain and !@#$ishness onto it. You're an amazing patisan hack, way worse than the liberals you like to deem yourself better than.

 

But I find your buffoonery hilarious so don't go changing.

 

 

 

In the end, what is all too clear, is that you feel a certain way about your faith, YES

 

 

customized to fit your ideal, NO NEVER SAID ANYTHING CLOSE TO THIS

 

and anyone who doesn't feel as you do is simply wrong NO, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING CLOSE TO THIS.

 

and in either case, it was just too much for you to vote Republican anymore. NO, NEVER SAID THIS EITHER.

.

If I were genuinely smarter than this, I would have avoided this discussion with you in the first place.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Oh, he just wants to destroy it so in our later years, when we are told old to make a living it isn't there for us. Some reform.

Even if that were the case, which is isn't, and you are unable to demonstrate, those claims are still not the ones made by Mother Jones nor birdog.

 

Further, what issue do you take with the government being honest with it's citizens about the financial sustainability of Social Security and other entitlement programs?

[Magox]

you might try clicking on the underlined words in those paragraphs. seems mother jones already did the searching.

 

I did. How about we do this, why don't you paste the "extreme" statements that he made, and tell us why you believe it was "extreme", rather than have Mother Jones Spoon feed to you their interpretations.

[Azalin]

oh? You don't think that the literal interpretation of a document written in the 18th century isn't extreme? Like the brilliant idea--supported by a member of this board--that paper and electronic money are not Constitutinal? No, I'm not the one making the mistake moron

 

you imply that the word 'electronic' is in the constitution, and in the same breath call me a moron? for the entertainment value alone, your posts will never get old.

 

[birdog1960]

I did. How about we do this, why don't you paste the "extreme" statements that he made, and tell us why you believe it was "extreme", rather than have Mother Jones Spoon feed to you their interpretations.

how bout you drop the personal crusade and concentrate on the issues? yours and my definition of "extreme" clearly differs. all politics are local as they say. my views would be mainstream in ann arbor or madison, chapel hill or asheville among many other places. yours and brats apparently, in a carefully redistricted area of virginia and most of the rural southeast. and brat's campaign manager? the bundy ranch perhaps?

[GG]

how bout you drop the personal crusade and concentrate on the issues? yours and my definition of "extreme" clearly differs. all politics are local as they say. my views would be mainstream in certain two square mile areas of ann arbor or madison, chapel hill or asheville that feel morally superior among many other places. yours and brats apparently, in a carefully redistricted area of virginia and most of the rural southeast. and brat's campaign manager? the bundy ranch perhaps?

Fixed.

 

Wonder why you picked those places? Oh yes, because the world needs to be run by intellectuals and academics, instead of people who actually make things happen.

 

Never mind we're seeing a live experiment of a world order being dictated by a detached academic, and the results aren't pretty. So what's the solution? Double-speed forward!

[Magox]

how bout you drop the personal crusade and concentrate on the issues? yours and my definition of "extreme" clearly differs. all politics are local as they say. my views would be mainstream in ann arbor or madison, chapel hill or asheville among many other places. yours and brats apparently, in a carefully redistricted area of virginia and most of the rural southeast. and brat's campaign manager? the bundy ranch perhaps?

 

No, your views would be mainstream in Venezuela.

 

Again, post what you find to be "extreme" and explain why, rather than having an extremist leftist political website tell you what to think.

 

And yes, let's discuss the issues. WTF do you think I've been trying to do with you?

Edited June 17, 2014 by Magox

[TH3]

• That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,
  
• That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,
  
• That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,
  
• That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,
  
• That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,
  
• That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.
  

That's Brats platform - says so on the internet. The problem of course - and a general overview - is that there is no connection with these and actually governing.

 

Totally agree with free enterprise - but that assumes free enterprise solves all issues - it doesn't.

Individual have equal rights? - don't stand in the way of SSM - in fact stand for it.

Fiscal responsibility - man up and present a budget that balances revenues and expenditures - and recognize that your simply not going to be able to get legislation passed that dramatically changes SS and MC/MA.

Constitutional Limitations? Last time I checked EVERYTHING that gets done is constitutional....there is a system for checking that stuff...

Strong Defense - Sounds great - problem is our defense department is governed as a corporate welfare system - look at our new fighter jet.

Strong Faith - Sure - just keep it to yourself...

 

Come on Tea Party - Man UP! Try to actually govern.....

Edited June 17, 2014 by baskin

[DC Tom]

That's Brats platform - says so on the internet. The problem of course - and a general overview - is that there is no connection with these and actually governing.

 

 

"Hope and Change."

[Magox]

• That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,
  
• That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,
  
• That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,
  
• That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,
  
• That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,
  
• That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.
  

That's Brats platform - says so on the internet. The problem of course - and a general overview - is that there is no connection with these and actually governing.

 

Totally agree with free enterprise - but that assumes free enterprise solves all issues - it doesn't.

Individual have equal rights? - don't stand in the way of SSM - in fact stand for it.

Fiscal responsibility - man up and present a budget that balances revenues and expenditures - and recognize that your simply not going to be able to get legislation passed that dramatically changes SS and MC/MA.

Constitutional Limitations? Last time I checked EVERYTHING that gets done is constitutional....there is a system for checking that stuff...

Strong Defense - Sounds great - problem is our defense department is governed as a corporate welfare system - look at our new fighter jet.

Strong Faith - Sure - just keep it to yourself...

 

Come on Tea Party - Man UP! Try to actually govern.....

 

 

In other words, what you wanted him to do was list in detail on his website how he would solve each one of these issues.

 

Great, now that you have clearly laid that as your marker, I fully expect ( no, I really don't) For you to hold the same standards for Liberals. So let's see, how about we start off with the leader of house for the Democrats. I mean after all, she has had soooo much more time and resources $$ to list on her website and to "Man UP!" and detail how she would as you say :

 

"Fiscal responsibility - man up and present a budget that balances revenues and expenditures - and recognize that your simply not going to be able to get legislation passed that dramatically changes SS and MC/MA."

 

 

I'm assuming you are holding the leader of the Liberal party accountable to do the same, and that anything less would be hypocritical, right?

 

So lets see what she has to say about this topic:

 

Despite this history, Republicans are yet again promising to privatize and cut Social Security and turn it over to Wall Street. The Social Security Trust Fund has a current surplus of $2.7 trillion. While Congress must address the long-term funding challenges to Social Security, any reforms must be focused on ensuring its long-term stability. We cannot turn our backs on the 55 million Americans who receive Social Security benefits.

 

http://pelosi.house....rement-security

 

 

 

So her plan is what exactly? Oh, I know, to punt the looming problem, the status quo. What detail, and a profile in courage.

 

You are grasping for straws, you desperately were looking to find something "extreme" and neither of you could find something. So now, you had to go to what in your mind was the next best line of attack which basically was "Hey, this guy needs to show us his detailed plans, or else I won't take him seriously"

 

At least you attempted to come up with something on your own, rather than post a link so that Mother Jones could do speculating for you.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Magox

[TakeYouToTasker]

That's Brats platform - says so on the internet. The problem of course - and a general overview - is that there is no connection with these and actually governing.

Given that it's the role of the executive to govern (ie. execute the law), and the purview of the legislative to legislate (ie. create the law); and noting that Brat is running for a legislative office, rather than an executive one, his platform is completely appropriate.

[Rob's House]

Constitutional Limitations? Last time I checked EVERYTHING that gets done is constitutional....there is a system for checking that stuff...

 

So as long as the government determines something is constitutional it is so? Kind of circular reasoning. You don't see the problem with your statement?

[birdog1960]

So as long as the government determines something is constitutional it is so? Kind of circular reasoning. You don't see the problem with your statement?

what's the alternative? a single oracle (perhaps magox or tasker) that divines the meanings infallibly? yes, if the supreme court rules an issue constitutional it is so...until it possibly later rules it unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is passed. that's the way it works. that's the mechanism. that's the prescribed algorithm by, yup, you guessed it, the constitution. circular or not, that's how it is. Edited June 17, 2014 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

what's the alternative? a single oracle (perhaps magox or tasker) that divines the meanings infallibly? yes, if the supreme court rules an issue constitutional it is so...until it possibly later rules it unconstitutional. that's the way it works. that's the mechanism. that's the prescribed algorithm by, yup, you guessed it, the constitution. circular or not, that's how it is.

That's not how the Constitution says it works, however.

 

Arguments put forth in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, and confirmed by Madison and Jay; define the intents of the delegation of the powers specific to the Court, and they specifically state that this is not amongst them.

 

It wasn't until many years later, when Justice Marshall ordained himself with unintended powers via Court decision, which he controlled. An decision opposed by Madison who wrote the Document in question.

 

You argument hinges on the absurd notion, that the Founders, who very vocally sought to create a limited government with specifically enumerated powers, actually intended to create unlimited government with broad and unlimited powers.

Edited June 17, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

That's not how the Constitution says it works, however.

 

Arguments put forth in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, and confirmed by Madison and Jay; define the intents of the delegation of the powers specific to the Court, and they specifically state that this is not amongst them.

 

It wasn't until many years later, when Justice Marbury ordained himself with unintended powers via Court decision, which he controlled. An decision opposed by Madison who wrote the Dopcument in question.

 

You argument hinges on the absurd notion, that the Founders, who very vocally sought to create a limited government with specifically enumerated powers, actually intended to create unlimited government with broad and unlimited powers.

"hamilton had written that in judicial review the Court ensures that the will of the whole people, as expressed in the constitution, would be supreme over the will of the legislators.." http://www.scholasti...-interpretation (which is taken directly from here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx) that's what we're talking about: judicial review. but you are arguing that the entire institution of the supreme court as currently functioning is unconstitutional. interesting (and certainly in line with libertarian thought) but extreme and fringe nonetheless. Edited June 17, 2014 by birdog1960

[Nanker]

• Create an economy built to last and built from the middle out

• Enable disability access, plus 100,000 federal jobs

• Auto manufacturers have paid back loans and drive the recovery

• Death penalty must not be arbitrary

• Join Central American governments to combat narco-traffic

• Turn around struggling public schools; expand public options

• Preserve ANWR but explore for oil responsibly elsewhere

• Support fatherhood with faith-based groups

• US leadership at the UN, including respectful disagreement

• Double our exports by 2015 with new trade agreements

• Curb the influence of lobbyists; no to Citizens United.

• Your vote should count; no to voter ID laws

• Confront terrorism while upholding Constitutional values

• DREAM Act for now; comprehensive reform next

• Bridge to Work: help the long term unemployed

• Recognize and defend Internet freedom worldwide

• No US forces in Iraq; no US bases in Iraq

• Bring our troops home from Afghanistan by 2014

• Partner with faith-based organizations to serve the needy

 

That right there ladies and gentlemen is most of the Democrat Party's 2012 campaign platform.

Specifics? We don't need no steenking specifics!

 

Typed that on my phone and the bullets came out: & bull;

I like that better. It puts the proper em-fah-sis on the right sill-ah-bull.

[TakeYouToTasker]

"hamilton had written that in judicial review the Court ensures that the will of the whole people, as expressed in the constitution, would be supreme over the will of the legislators.." http://www.scholasti...-interpretation (which is taken directly from here: http://www.supremeco...titutional.aspx) that's what we're talking about: judicial review. but you are arguing that the entire institution of the supreme court as currently functioning is unconstitutional. interesting (and certainly in line with libertarian thought) but extreme and fringe nonetheless.

While it may appear to be "fringe" today, it clearly wasn't "fringe" at the time, as the issue held enough merit that it went to the SCOTUS where the role of the judiciary was changed, from it's intended Constitutional purpose, via judicial decree; and even today, the issue is far from extreme, unless you believe our Constitutional History, and it's study to be extreme.

 

Even given that, the only reason it may even appear so, is our government approved revisionist history, which is used to indoctrinate our population. You'll note that when referencing the writtings in question, you didn't go to the source, but rather to an interpretation of the source.

 

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

 

...

 

It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."

 

...

 

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

 

Ultimately, what the modern interpretation allows in an unlimited government, not constrained by the Rule of Law, but rather by the rule of lawyers; not limited by the Constitution, but rather empowered by Constitutional Law.

 

To that: You can't possibly believe the Founders intended all powers to rest comfortably in the hands of nine unaccountable government lawyers, privileged for life.

Edited June 17, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Typed that on my phone and the bullets came out: & bull;

I like that better. It puts the proper em-fah-sis on the right sill-ah-bull.

I wish it were intentional as it would be even funnier. Good stuff.